Social media platforms providing a platform for objectionable content is not exactly a new phenomenon that emerged in the last couple of years. Online platforms are hailed for amplifying previously unheard voices and allowing a space for anyone and everyone to say whatever they want to. What was ignored and even actively avoided by mainstream media is now almost encouraged by online platforms. What makes online platforms as popular as they are, is the form in which they amplify people’s voices; in complete anonymity. People acquire the ability to not actually face the person they are talking to and still get their point across. This is an extremely powerful feeling. In a world where we were witnessing increasing frustration of the masses towards the political and the ruling, where the minority and exploited groups did not seem to get their voices heard, suddenly came this medium which allowed them to speak truth to power. Unfortunately, in 2020, this medium which was supposed to be the weapon of the masses has been transformed into another instrument for manipulation and deluding the masses. The last decade has indeed been a tumultuous period when it comes to the dynamics involving regulatory laws, social media companies and the public. Discussions have shifted from poverty and technological outreach to how technological advancement can be seen parallelly to concerns regarding privacy, sovereignty and how democracy should function in the new era. A report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, which was submitted to the United Nations Security Council gains relevance.

This was one of the reports in a series of reports put forward by David Kaye that addressed the issue of regulation of online content. In the given report David Kaye discusses issues related to online content and how it affects our society and why international human rights law should be undertone for any regulatory law that comes into place. The report is a comprehensive document which discusses a model for the regulatory process covering various aspects such as categorisation of objectionable content, addressing enquiries and providing remedies. It was an admirable decision that pushed the conversation forward. We saw several controversial events which were centred around how social media companies operate. The most eye-catching event was the US Presidential election of 2016. The level of scrutiny and surprising revelations about political alliances and how social media companies not only allow manipulation but even encourage their spread was disturbing, to say the least. The magnitude of influence these companies have over how information is dispersed and ultimately, how the society perceives events around the world is almost god-like. Critiques have not hesitated from blaming these companies for the fake news epidemic.

To be fair, Facebook over the last year and a half has shown some encouraging signs taking proactive steps to curb the spread of hate speech and fake news. It released the internal statistical data related to its guidelines for content creation and regulation and set up a new appeals procedure. Facebook is of course, very aware of regulatory backlash from the European Union which fined a huge sum of 110 million euros. Another social media company is known as ‘Twitter’ also made efforts to become more transparent concerning how they, as a social media platform regulate political content. Furthermore, they introduced several measures to improve ‘conversational health’. The concerns will only grow in this age of digital outreach and political toxicity and legislators need to keep up with the times.